Join the Unexplained Mysteries community today! It's free and setting up an account only takes a moment.
- Sign In or Create Account -
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1
Hazzard

Best evidence for ET visitation - 4th edition

375 posts in this topic

Well, the 1993 Cossford triangle case then - oh wait... i think that's a man made (prob US) vehicle like TR 3B...

This isn't easy! Sorry Hazz

The Cosford Incident,... http://www.nickpope.net/cosford-incident.htm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The Cosford Incident,... http://www.nickpope....rd-incident.htm

In many ways this sums up Pope, a whole 3 lines for what was/is supposed to be a major event. RAF Cosford wasn't a front-line base at the time of the supposed UFO flap, and was only host to training units and a university air squadron.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

In many ways this sums up Pope, a whole 3 lines for what was/is supposed to be a major event.

Feel free to post a link to a better detailed report.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

" But it wasn’t until 2005 that an airman serving at RAF Shawbury read Nick Pope’s account of the sighting and decided it was time to speak out. “The UFO supposedly seen at RAF Shawbury was later identified as a Dyfed-Powys police helicopter following a stolen car down the A5 between the A49 junction,” he wrote. “The observer was using his NiteSun to illuminate proceedings.”

:cry:

http://www.uk-ufo.or...secfilcosf2.htm

(The Shawbury one, mentioned by Mr. Pop, was all part of the same inicdent).

Edited by Lord Vetinari

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There always seem to be a mundane explanation to UFOs.... the trick is to find it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There always seem to be a mundane explanation to UFOs.... the trick is to find it.

That is because the UFOlogists go to great lengths to hide logic. ET works better when we view him as a God that can do anything.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thes why science and UFOology arent friends... many times (most of the time) there arent anything to test, or investigate.

Its the old classic Believe it or not ending.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Thes why science and UFOology arent friends...

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

2 people like this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

Isnt that just about as big a mystery as the UFO (paranormal) phenomenon it self? Why in the world would people that truly believe in this be so against science as a tool in their "investigation". Its even worse that that, they are against everyone else that gets close to the topic with the scientific method in mind.

Why is that, you think?

One would think that its more rewarding to have science telling us that this is real, that we are indeed being visited?

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Yeah, but they could be, and that's the part that annoys me. ETH proponents (some, not all) seem to have a very anti-science view when they should be using science to attempt to validate their claims. Instead we are asked to turn a blind eye to the single greatest method of pursuing knowledge in the history of man. It's damn near oxymoronic...

Near?

:D

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Isnt that just about as big a mystery as the UFO (paranormal) phenomenon it self? Why in the world would people that truly believe in this be so against science as a tool in their "investigation". Its even worse that that, they are against everyone else that gets close to the topic with the scientific method in mind.

Why is that, you think?

One would think that its more rewarding to have science telling us that this is real, that we are indeed being visited?

I can only think of one reason.... It would destroy their fantasy/belief.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I can only think of one reason.... It would destroy their fantasy/belief.

I do not think fantasy and belief are the same as the '/' suggests.

Anyhow do you think there is a difference between the scientific method versus the scientific mindset?

I ask because I would think we can only really apply scientific method when we have evidence, without evidence we cannot apply scientific method.

what do you think?

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I do not think fantasy and belief are the same as the '/' suggests.

Anyhow do you think there is a difference between the scientific method versus the scientific mindset?

I ask because I would think we can only really apply scientific method when we have evidence, without evidence we cannot apply scientific method.

what do you think?

I agree with that, I guess.

What is your opinion on how some believers dont seem to want to use (HATE) science, the skeptical approach, and the required critical thinking in their "investigation"?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I agree with that, I guess.

What is your opinion on how some believers dont seem to want to use (HATE) science, the skeptical approach, and the required critical thinking in their "investigation"?

I guess my question was really leading to this, I think anyone who hates scientific method enjoys living in fantasy land. Having said that I think it is also bad to dismiss anything that cannot be confirmed by scientific method, leaving us only with scientific mindset, which I believe can be detrimental to progress in certain fields.

A skeptical approach is good, but there are varying degress of skeptical approach, the one that leads with ridicule and dismisses without further investigation is as damaging as those living in fantasy land IMO.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

A skeptical approach is good, but there are varying degress of skeptical approach, the one that leads with ridicule and dismisses without further investigation is as damaging as those living in fantasy land IMO.

Sure, there are a range of skeptical approaches, just as there is a range of non-skeptical ones.. :D

But isn't there are rather obvious quandary? I happily admit I do sometimes dismiss cases quickly and completely - sorry Zoser.. (and sometimes I may ridicule them, although more often I'll ridicule the faux analyses or silly weightings being given to those cases) - but I do so only on those case that are unsupported anecdotes ie no supporting evidence!

You can't very usefully apply the scientific method to an anecdote, as even if the anecdote is 100% true (to the person stating it), that information they are relating is what is stored in their brains. It is not a video or a photograph or a radar trace that can be analysed using technical principles. It is a subjective memory, affected by that person's experience (inc. the movies they've seen), desires, beliefs, ... etc.

Things is, we have an absolute multitude of claimed sightings - and many alien=ET promoters will say that's all you need.

I say.. how is it that out of all those sightings, there isn't even one with compelling non-anecdotal evidence?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sure, there are a range of skeptical approaches, just as there is a range of non-skeptical ones.. :D

hello Chrlzs, yes agreed.

But isn't there are rather obvious quandary? I happily admit I do sometimes dismiss cases quickly and completely - sorry Zoser.. (and sometimes I may ridicule them, although more often I'll ridicule the faux analyses or silly weightings being given to those cases) - but I do so only on those case that are unsupported anecdotes ie no supporting evidence!

but why would one choose to ridicule an anecdote or even dismiss it? I am not suggesting it should be blindly believed or that it constitutes scientific evidence...but to dismiss or ridicule I think is preventitive in making progress.

You can't very usefully apply the scientific method to an anecdote, as even if the anecdote is 100% true (to the person stating it), that information they are relating is what is stored in their brains. It is not a video or a photograph or a radar trace that can be analysed using technical principles. It is a subjective memory, affected by that person's experience (inc. the movies they've seen), desires, beliefs, ... etc.

Heres the rub, I dont see the major difference between an anecdote versus the video or photograph or even the radar trace. I say this to the extent that none of the above constitute the level of evidence required so why are they superior? maybe in establishing a hoax/misidentification etc but none can prove anything the other way. video and photo are subject to manipulation whilst a RADAR return can be caused by many things. Therefore they are as useful in trying to prove ET as an anecdote is IMO.

Things is, we have an absolute multitude of claimed sightings - and many alien=ET promoters will say that's all you need.

I say.. how is it that out of all those sightings, there isn't even one with compelling non-anecdotal evidence?

firstly the multitude of claims means little as even if there are 10000 and only 5 are real, how do we find the level of evidence needed within those five 'real' events? I dont see why evidence has to have been left behind? If the 10000 cases were all real then yes, maybe some evidence should have been left but this still doesnt equate to 'has to have been left behind'...

I would also add that you say 'compelling non anecdotal evidence'. Such as? as explored earlier -video, photos and RADAR do not constitute compelling evidence, right? which really leaves us with alien body or part of craft (I dont even think an unknown substance is enough), so I ask, if only an alien body or piece of craft will suffice, why should there be either ever left behind?

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

but why would one choose to ridicule an anecdote or even dismiss it?

Simple - anecdotes are human perceptions. They may also be deliberate hoaxes. They are also influenced by popular culture, even tacit approval or encouragement from sectors that are often ignored, like the defence forces that almost certainly got additional funding and were allowed to do things not normally allowed in peacetime - and all the pilots had to do was claim 'a UFO made me do it'... :D

I am not suggesting it should be blindly believed or that it constitutes scientific evidence...

Same here.

but to dismiss or ridicule I think is preventitive in making progress.

I disagree and I think the reverse effect, namely the constant claim that with so many anecdotes it must be true, is extremely counter-productive. It not only is completely flawed, it also almost begs for those wishing to stir the pot, to invent more stories.. Ufology isn't exactly enjoying much credibility at the moment, and I think that's the main reason why. People are sick of exotic tales of ... lights in the sky.

Heres the rub, I dont see the major difference between an anecdote versus the video or photograph or even the radar trace.

Nup, sorry, can't go with that.. Although I would concede that if you had a multiple sighting by multiple highly credible witnesses (and no, I don't mean just pilots or police officers - I mean a UN- or mainstream-scientists- convention (I'm only partially kidding), and that the sighting was agreed upon and had inescapably alien characteristics.. then fair enough, I'd listen....

I say this to the extent that none of the above constitute the level of evidence required so why are they superior?

Simply because they can be examined dispassionately, and scientifically. IF there was a sighting that involved genuinely matching radar and photographic evidence, again that was of inescapably alien origin, then you have something quite different to two witnesses with stories to tell (who often will be found to know each other, or one of which has since heard the other's description..).

video and photo are subject to manipulation

The miserable crud we get to see here, are.. but if there was a genuine case of this recorded by decent equipment and with access to the original media (ie before Jaime Maussan and his disgusting ilk get hold of it), then a number of real forensic techniques can be applied to verify and analyse the data. Seriously, when was the last time you saw anything of genuine interest being investigated properly, ie via reputable test labs, or by a genuine forensic image specialist? Or for that matter, a sighting coming from, say, a known amateur astronomer, like a comet-hunter? In the case of the latter, those guys (and there are many thousands of them) simply aren't seeing anything that they can't explain. In the former, it's because the charlatans like Maussan jump onto these people in a flash, buy their footage and feed it to their shareholder 'experts' for the outcome they want, or .. it was a hoax from the start.

whilst a RADAR return can be caused by many things.

That's why you need a genuine radar expert to look at this stuff, and again, proper access to the original data. If it ISN'T a false return, that will be obvious.

Therefore they are as useful in trying to prove ET as an anecdote is IMO.

But can't you see that IF there was even just one genuine alien-origin UFO flying about, then evidence like this, eg continuous footage of an obviously non-terrestrial craft doing non-terrestrial things, recorded both photographically and on an unequivocal radar trace from forensically verifiable footage/data (eg from NASA, or some other space agency, or an airport, or an aircraft, or a webcam, or an amateur astronomer, or...) SHOULD exist by now? If anything, such data is getting more rare - the best cases seem to date back many years, despite the unprecedented level of observation being applied to our skies.

even if there are 10000 and only 5 are real, how do we find the level of evidence needed within those five 'real' events?

Scientifically, not by anecdote. And surely the statistics are in et's favour IF anecdotes can be believed. That 'real' evidence must surely be just around the corner, any day now..

I would also add that you say 'compelling non anecdotal evidence'. Such as? as explored earlier -video, photos and RADAR do not constitute compelling evidence, right?

Nope - the problem is the lousy quality of the evidence, and the fact that many aspects of it don't add up or corroborate as they should, or the data is no longer available (if it ever was). If you genuinely think one or two cases are absolutely compelling, then fire away. I doubt you can come up with 1, let alone 5..

if only an alien body or piece of craft will suffice, why should there be either ever left behind?

Devil's Advocate here... Seriously, if we are NEVER going to see genuinely non-terrestrial craft, or an alien or even a bit of beyond-physics flight characteristics, then ... what is the big deal - they effectively don't exist! I mean all you are left with is unidentifiable lights in the sky and people telling cool-bro stories. I live near airports and highway patrol choppers and an RC club - I see dem ufos all the time. And I used to have a Grandpa whose stories were, frankly, completely unbelievable..

I'm hoping for something a little more exciting, and palpable... :D

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

[/size]

Simple - anecdotes are human perceptions. They may also be deliberate hoaxes. They are also influenced by popular culture, even tacit approval or encouragement from sectors that are often ignored, like the defence forces that almost certainly got additional funding and were allowed to do things not normally allowed in peacetime - and all the pilots had to do was claim 'a UFO made me do it'... :D

I appreciate that it is just perception and that they may be hoaxes etc (I did try to address this in my post) my point is that whether its anecdotes, photos, videos or RADAR none can constitute evidence in as far as proving ET, so to an extent they all leave us with perception most of the time and scientific proof never.

I disagree and I think the reverse effect, namely the constant claim that with so many anecdotes it must be true, is extremely counter-productive. It not only is completely flawed, it also almost begs for those wishing to stir the pot, to invent more stories.. Ufology isn't exactly enjoying much credibility at the moment, and I think that's the main reason why. People are sick of exotic tales of ... lights in the sky.

I agree its completely flawed but dont see it as extremely counter productive.

tales of lights in the sky is the same as photos of lights, videos of lights etc....never going to be conclusive in regards to ET should it be ET...

Nup, sorry, can't go with that.. Although I would concede that if you had a multiple sighting by multiple highly credible witnesses (and no, I don't mean just pilots or police officers - I mean a UN- or mainstream-scientists- convention (I'm only partially kidding), and that the sighting was agreed upon and had inescapably alien characteristics.. then fair enough, I'd listen....

inescapably alien characteristics needs quite a bit of defining dont you think? and ok so you would listen? what next? it cant prove it so the best result is making you believe......thats it, but then the response wil be I want to know not to believe.

Simply because they can be examined dispassionately, and scientifically. IF there was a sighting that involved genuinely matching radar and photographic evidence, again that was of inescapably alien origin, then you have something quite different to two witnesses with stories to tell (who often will be found to know each other, or one of which has since heard the other's description..).

ok so it can be scientifically examined but this examination could never led to proof of ET...this is my point, it can prove conclusively that it is not, but not that it is.

The miserable crud we get to see here, are.. but if there was a genuine case of this recorded by decent equipment and with access to the original media (ie before Jaime Maussan and his disgusting ilk get hold of it), then a number of real forensic techniques can be applied to verify and analyse the data. Seriously, when was the last time you saw anything of genuine interest being investigated properly, ie via reputable test labs, or by a genuine forensic image specialist? Or for that matter, a sighting coming from, say, a known amateur astronomer, like a comet-hunter? In the case of the latter, those guys (and there are many thousands of them) simply aren't seeing anything that they can't explain. In the former, it's because the charlatans like Maussan jump onto these people in a flash, buy their footage and feed it to their shareholder 'experts' for the outcome they want, or .. it was a hoax from the start.

and if they did it would be anecdotal still? And as for the data and footage etc this cannot b scientific proof ever and at best will leave an anomoly/unknown

That's why you need a genuine radar expert to look at this stuff, and again, proper access to the original data. If it ISN'T a false return, that will be obvious.

even with this supporting an story...bottom line is that it is still an anecdote...with or without supporting evidence.

But can't you see that IF there was even just one genuine alien-origin UFO flying about, then evidence like this, eg continuous footage of an obviously non-terrestrial craft doing non-terrestrial things, recorded both photographically and on an unequivocal radar trace from forensically verifiable footage/data (eg from NASA, or some other space agency, or an airport, or an aircraft, or a webcam, or an amateur astronomer, or...) SHOULD exist by now? If anything, such data is getting more rare - the best cases seem to date back many years, despite the unprecedented level of observation being applied to our skies.

I think your mistake here (hows that for fight talk :tu: ) is that the phrasing used suggests a continuous prolonged invasion of our airspace.......why cant it have come 5 times only, once in 1942 once in 1946 etc etc...

Is this bordering a strawman MrC?

Scientifically, not by anecdote. And surely the statistics are in et's favour IF anecdotes can be believed. That 'real' evidence must surely be just around the corner, any day now..

yes but how does science do this scientifically without the evidence?

Nope - the problem is the lousy quality of the evidence, and the fact that many aspects of it don't add up or corroborate as they should, or the data is no longer available (if it ever was). If you genuinely think one or two cases are absolutely compelling, then fire away. I doubt you can come up with 1, let alone 5..

compelling how? I think I have a few but lets clarify what you are after :tu:

Devil's Advocate here... Seriously, if we are NEVER going to see genuinely non-terrestrial craft, or an alien or even a bit of beyond-physics flight characteristics, then ... what is the big deal - they effectively don't exist! I mean all you are left with is unidentifiable lights in the sky and people telling cool-bro stories. I live near airports and highway patrol choppers and an RC club - I see dem ufos all the time. And I used to have a Grandpa whose stories were, frankly, completely unbelievable..

I'm hoping for something a little more exciting, and palpable... :D

I think this happens often (bolded)....establishing that this is a craft is another story let alone that ET was the pilot.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Quill, a couple of questions for you. What would you consider to be solid evidence? The kind that nearly anybody with a critical mind could get behind and say "Okay, it looks like we might have something here". And second, in your time investigating the ETH has your skepticism grown or diminished over the years? Just curious. :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hey Quill, a couple of questions for you. What would you consider to be solid evidence? The kind that nearly anybody with a critical mind could get behind and say "Okay, it looks like we might have something here". And second, in your time investigating the ETH has your skepticism grown or diminished over the years? Just curious. :tu:

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? ET, UFOs, unknown phenomenon??? I think I have seen enough evidence to confirm to me that UFOs are real at very least in the sense there is an unknown phenomenon at work. I also believe I have seen enough to be confident that certain powers/organisations within the government (historically) have either known or believed that the 'UFO' phenomenon was indeed ET.....granted they could have got this wrong and made a leap 'some' of us make....i.e. metallic object making impossible manouevers at incredible speeds 'must' be a craft....our technology at best is many many years behind such technology therefore must be ET....(ofcourse we now know 'plasma' can create these 'factors' which may or may not have previously been the driving force behind their 'conclusion/belief'.

b ) 'solid evidence' to have belief, know for sure or create an interest in everyone...I guess you suggest its the last named 'create an interest in everyone'.

My skeptisism has actually reduced.....you may ask why, I would say that the large number of hoaxes and misidenfications actually increase confidence....if there really were no hoaxes and every case was/is top be believed then I think as mentioned to Chrlzs, we could at least reasonably expect some form of scientific evidence to be had, or at very least multiple clear videos of a craft doing impossible manouevers....not sure at what point we could invoke ET, even if we see beings are they classed as ET if they appear as humans do....Father Gill good example of this potential issue.

edit to add: leaving for home shortly so may not respond to any further post until tomorrow :tu:

Edited by quillius

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? .

Sorry, I meant solid evidence of alien visitation. I agree that UFO's are a demonstrable phenomena I, like everybody else, would like to know what they are. Be it ET or 'other'. The evidence for ET though hasn't been nearly as definitive as some would make out though and honestly, that's not the fault of the skeptical minded, it's just the nature of the phenomena I believe. Someday though I think we will get some good data on an anomaly and we will be able to quantify and qualify at least an aspect/s of the phenomena. I think though that there will be those who will hold out hope for ET until everything under the sun (and everything not) is clearly defined and categorized. It is the 'romance of the unknown', to coin a phrase. I'm not totally against alien visitation yet I'm certainly not sold on it either.

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Sorry, I meant solid evidence of alien visitation. I agree that UFO's are a demonstrable phenomena I, like everybody else, would like to know what they are. Be it ET or 'other'. The evidence for ET though hasn't been nearly as definitive as some would make out though and honestly, that's not the fault of the skeptical minded, it's just the nature of the phenomena I believe. Someday though I think we will get some good data on an anomaly and we will be able to quantify and qualify at least an aspect/s of the phenomena. I think though that there will be those who will hold out hope for ET until everything under the sun (and everything not) is clearly defined and categorized. It is the 'romance of the unknown', to coin a phrase. I'm not totally against alien visitation yet I'm certainly not sold on it either.

I actually agree with everything you have said there and find my position relatively similar. I guess I am in a way a bigger skeptic than most of the 'skeptics' here, I say this because I will challenge and doubt any ET story but at the same time I will also challenge a 'solution/debunk' just as vigorously if not more so.

I really couldnt agree more with the sentence bolded I too am of the opinion that the nature of the phenomenon be it ET or natural makes it diificult.

going back to the question, what about point b? so solid evidence for visitation, ok I get that but to achieve what end result? belief...fact....start an interest in etc....if its for it to create a belief then the 'solid evidence bar' is lower, not as low as 'start an interest' but no where near as high as 'fact'...the last needing alien corpse or maybe at very least piece of exotic craft.

:tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

... I will also challenge a 'solution/debunk' just as vigorously if not more so.

As long as it is coupled with logic and reason then I'd say it's something we need around here just as much as skepticism. I've always been a fan of a believer/skeptic corroboration method as opposed to tit for tat debates we seem to see so often around here. I'm interested in answers more so than trying to prove a point, although that doesn't mean I'm immune from the latter. :lol:

Always a pleasure Quill. :tu:

1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Hello there S2F.....hmm ok, I see you did try to qualify what you meant by 'solid evidence', I think I would need further clarification on a) solid evidence of what? ET, UFOs, unknown phenomenon??? I think I have seen enough evidence to confirm to me that UFOs are real at very least in the sense there is an unknown phenomenon at work.

Gidday Mate

Hope you do not mind me butting in, you always expose the most interesting of angles.

I think you would be hard pressed to find opposition to the above I think the average skeptic hold Hessdalen as good proof and a shining example that some UFO's that display decidedly unusual behaviour are most definitely very much terrestrial. I am not sure of the reality of UAP are discounted by anyone. At any one point there is millions of reactions going on beneath our feet, with temps and pressures we can only imagine. There is absolutely no doubt that some of these processes offer display that we would consider optically unusual. Many indeed have been catalogued to date already. That list I expect to grow with time.

I also believe I have seen enough to be confident that certain powers/organisations within the government (historically) have either known or believed that the 'UFO' phenomenon was indeed ET.....granted they could have got this wrong and made a leap 'some' of us make....i.e. metallic object making impossible manouevers at incredible speeds 'must' be a craft....our technology at best is many many years behind such technology therefore must be ET....(ofcourse we now know 'plasma' can create these 'factors' which may or may not have previously been the driving force behind their 'conclusion/belief'.

Indeed, however, rather than an indicator of the validity of the phenomena, to me it more display's the narrow mindset pointed at the phenomena, no doubt preempted by a love and fear of space. This was before we even had a good look at Mars, and Lowells' canali managed to captivate the imagination of the globe. People were quite comfortable with the idea of Martians. IN fact, many simply wondered how we would initiate first contact, and that intelligent species was a given.

And that my friend, is why Orson Wells' radio stunt had such an impact on the nation. Everyone thought the "Martians" had finally come. Social studies I feel help to unlock the enigma of the UFO=Aliens answer that came from the 40's and 50's. Not the Martians themselves.

b ) 'solid evidence' to have belief, know for sure or create an interest in everyone...I guess you suggest its the last named 'create an interest in everyone'.

I find that sounds an awful lot like "self validation" when expressed by a believer - in general.

My skeptisism has actually reduced.....

You are a most perplexing poster!

you may ask why,

I cannot fathom how one could avoid this question........ :lol:

I would say that the large number of hoaxes and misidenfications actually increase confidence....if there really were no hoaxes and every case was/is top be believed then I think as mentioned to Chrlzs, we could at least reasonably expect some form of scientific evidence to be had, or at very least multiple clear videos of a craft doing impossible manouevers....

That is interesting. This means that you have confidence that there is a genuine report out there, that ET has landed, we just need to find the evidence in this haystack of nonsense?

Or that because this is what one would expect, if such a genuine item happened, someone would find it credulous, and copycat the idea, which has caught on?

not sure at what point we could invoke ET, even if we see beings are they classed as ET if they appear as humans do....Father Gill good example of this potential issue.

Beings classed by whom is the problem. Father Gill's description goes as far as to state what was seen appears to be a human being. Then the ETH shoehorn comes in and squeezes ET in by saying things like, "He could not see below the waist the legs might have been 20 foot long (yeah right, and a 35 foot craft!) This is the problem with the ETH. Some are to eager to invoke it. Vallee's saucer with propellors and the 1896 airship show this conundrum is not as straightforward as simply invoking a higher power and saying "That'll do"

edit to add: leaving for home shortly so may not respond to any further post until tomorrow :tu:

Looking froward to it.

Cheers.

Edited by psyche101
1 person likes this

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

As long as it is coupled with logic and reason then I'd say it's something we need around here just as much as skepticism. I've always been a fan of a believer/skeptic corroboration method as opposed to tit for tat debates we seem to see so often around here. I'm interested in answers more so than trying to prove a point, although that doesn't mean I'm immune from the latter. :lol:

Always a pleasure Quill. :tu:

likewise S2F, gave a lot of thought to this last night and will post some of these thoughts on your new thread :tu:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  
Followers 1

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.